This one needs some work. I think the subsection about the Wilderness in GW2 could probably stand to be its own article. TR
- The intro needed work, certainly; I did what I could with it, based on what I remembered off the top of my head. The GotS section looks exceptionally thorough, however. Unless you're suggesting it's too detailed? Given how much of the book it took up, it does not seem inappropriate to me. Turtle Fan 23:06, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
- The intro and the 191 section are my biggest issues. I was quite happy with the GotS (a few red links to remind us GotS needs work, but we already knew that). The conflict in 191 was completely different from any other version, however, which is usually when we create a new article. However, I can't quite tell how detailed that article is likely to be. TR 13:31, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Probably not very, but that might be another case for moving it (though the one you've identified is strong enough by itself). If it's not going to be detailed, we wouldn't want it sharing space with such an uber-detailed page; that would just call attention to its inadequacies.
- By the way, I'm wondering why the Wilderness was still there in the 1940s. The Snake's CS possessed the technology to develop much of it, and this would be in keeping with his industrialization/public works projects. The only reason there's a Wildnerness there today is due to the efforts of historical preservation societies, and the area had no historical significance in 191. Turtle Fan 13:43, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Red Links[]
There are so many red links on the article! Do any of you want to make articles for any of the characters that are marked in the red links? A.P. Hill is an example. --75.68.122.13 21:45, December 6, 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian
- So many? There are four. And while we could take another look via Amazon's Search Inside feature, I don't think there's enough to be said for any of them to merit their own articles. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:01, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
- As I recall, both Hill and Heth interact with Lee and while Sedgwick never appears, I believe it is mentioned that he had an all black regiment that fought Caudell's. Also, Henry Pleasants mentions his regiment belonged to Sedgwick's Corp. I think those three would get small articles, if and when. ML4E (talk) 19:36, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- You know, I'm wondering if we might want to consider Minor Historical Characters for people in this boat, who turn up once or twice for a cup of coffee or get tiny little mentions. If those cameos and/or mentions add up to a critical mass, we would then give them articles proper. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:08, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- I've had similar thoughts. We do have a fair number historical articles that are comparable to our minor characters in terms of substance. Having an article for Horatio Nelson is nice, but since the article arises from some vague comparison between Nelson and some U.S. vet who is missing an eye, it isn't the most interesting article. I think we'd need a set of very rigid rules for the process, both in terms of what qualifies as them as "minor" and what would allow them to get back to their own articles. TR (talk) 22:32, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you guys for creating articles for the characters with red links! --75.68.122.13 14:55, February 16, 2016 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian